Everything looks good to me except this one point when discussing Braxton Miller:

"Miller is a very good passer (91 Throw Power, 84 Throw Accuracy)"

He is an excellent runner as a QB, but not that good as a passer. He finished tied for 43rd in the country in passer rating at 140.5 (McCarron was #1 at 175.3). His YPA of 8.0 is tied for 25th with 9 other QBs. His completion percentage of 58.3% was good for 80th in the country.

Do those stats really show someone who is a very good passer to you?

I know I am a Michigan fan so this may sound like the homer in me talking. He is a very good QB because of his legs and that opens throwing opportunities for him, but to say he is a very good passer is a little laughable.

Just compare that year of his to Denard Robinson's from 2011 (2012 he was injured for 5 games and was not a QB so the stats aren't a fair comparison).

2011 - 55.0%, 8.4 YPA, 139.7 passer rating.

Keep in mind Denard had 15 ints that year to sink his passer rating as opposed to the 6 Miller had in 2012. Everyone, including myself would admit Denard Robinson is not a very good passer. He was electric because of his legs first and foremost.

Everything looks good to me except this one point when discussing Braxton Miller:

"Miller is a very good passer (91 Throw Power, 84 Throw Accuracy)"

He is an excellent runner as a QB, but not that good as a passer. He finished tied for 43rd in the country in passer rating at 140.5 (McCarron was #1 at 175.3). His YPA of 8.0 is tied for 25th with 9 other QBs. His completion percentage of 58.3% was good for 80th in the country.

Do those stats really show someone who is a very good passer to you?

I know I am a Michigan fan so this may sound like the homer in me talking. He is a very good QB because of his legs and that opens throwing opportunities for him, but to say he is a very good passer is a little laughable.

Just compare that year of his to Denard Robinson's from 2011 (2012 he was injured for 5 games and was not a QB so the stats aren't a fair comparison).

2011 - 55.0%, 8.4 YPA, 139.7 passer rating.

Keep in mind Denard had 15 ints that year to sink his passer rating as opposed to the 6 Miller had in 2012. Everyone, including myself would admit Denard Robinson is not a very good passer. He was electric because of his legs first and foremost.

How bad of a passer he was in real life doesn't matter. The fact that he has 91 THP and 84 THA is what makes him a good passer in NCAA '14 (although I wouldn't call that very good). The guys that have THP and THA both in the 90s are what I'd call very good.

Also for Lewan I think his pass blocking is probably a tad high. He is an excellent run blocker, but when pro scouts were evaluating him his pass blocking was viewed as needing improvement because he is still a little raw in that area.

How bad of a passer he was in real life doesn't matter. The fact that he has 91 THP and 84 THA is what makes him a good passer in NCAA '14 (although I wouldn't call that very good). The guys that have THP and THA both in the 90s are what I'd call very good.

So what a person does in real life has no impact on their rating in the game whatsoever? I will say that yes, numbers in the 90s would make a very good passer.

Everything looks good to me except this one point when discussing Braxton Miller:

"Miller is a very good passer (91 Throw Power, 84 Throw Accuracy)"

He is an excellent runner as a QB, but not that good as a passer. He finished tied for 43rd in the country in passer rating at 140.5 (McCarron was #1 at 175.3). His YPA of 8.0 is tied for 25th with 9 other QBs. His completion percentage of 58.3% was good for 80th in the country.

Do those stats really show someone who is a very good passer to you?

I know I am a Michigan fan so this may sound like the homer in me talking. He is a very good QB because of his legs and that opens throwing opportunities for him, but to say he is a very good passer is a little laughable.

Just compare that year of his to Denard Robinson's from 2011 (2012 he was injured for 5 games and was not a QB so the stats aren't a fair comparison).

2011 - 55.0%, 8.4 YPA, 139.7 passer rating.

Keep in mind Denard had 15 ints that year to sink his passer rating as opposed to the 6 Miller had in 2012. Everyone, including myself would admit Denard Robinson is not a very good passer. He was electric because of his legs first and foremost.

And if you're gonna compare Miller and Robinson as passers, Miller's arm (91 THP/84 THA) is better than Denard's was in '13.

Everything looks good to me except this one point when discussing Braxton Miller:

"Miller is a very good passer (91 Throw Power, 84 Throw Accuracy)"

He is an excellent runner as a QB, but not that good as a passer. He finished tied for 43rd in the country in passer rating at 140.5 (McCarron was #1 at 175.3). His YPA of 8.0 is tied for 25th with 9 other QBs. His completion percentage of 58.3% was good for 80th in the country.

Do those stats really show someone who is a very good passer to you?

I know I am a Michigan fan so this may sound like the homer in me talking. He is a very good QB because of his legs and that opens throwing opportunities for him, but to say he is a very good passer is a little laughable.

Just compare that year of his to Denard Robinson's from 2011 (2012 he was injured for 5 games and was not a QB so the stats aren't a fair comparison).

2011 - 55.0%, 8.4 YPA, 139.7 passer rating.

Keep in mind Denard had 15 ints that year to sink his passer rating as opposed to the 6 Miller had in 2012. Everyone, including myself would admit Denard Robinson is not a very good passer. He was electric because of his legs first and foremost.

I totally agree with you as a Buckeye fan. It looks like EA boosted his Passing attributes tremendously. He is a phenom running and scrambling, but he is certainly not anywhere near an elite passer, which a 96 OVR suggests. I don't care how much time he spent with George Whitfield, until he proves he has improved on the field, I'd say EA overrated him. You can't always look at the OVR rating, but in this case they had to have pumped his arm up to achieve that mark. My only recommendation to people who don't like it is Download the Buffeye roster when we drop it.

They all too damn high......But then again they are always too high every year.

agreed. i wish ncaa and madden would be cooperative in their ratings.

a 99 should be best in the world, all-timer type player, and should never happen in college.

i dont think there should be a cap on college players, but very rarely should any of them be in the 90's, and the elite should usually be in the mid-high 80's where most good-not-great pro's are. maybe a handful each year. those that would play and impact from day 1 in nfl, like clowney, julio/aj green a few years back, cam newton, luck/rg3, etc.

most players should be in 60's/70's, with the good in the high 70's/low 80's, and elite in mid/high 80's, with a rare low 90 player like peterson and manning.

as for those ratings, relative to each other, doesn't look bad. clowney is clearly the best player, followed by manziel and a handful of other good qb's and a few tackles.

They all too damn high......But then again they are always too high every year.

While I definitely would prefer the ratings to be lower, given the progression in dynasty, I don't think that these are too high. There's only 1 99 in this bunch. I've had bunches of guys in my offline and online dynasties that were rated 99, and that's with me not allowed to sway anyone that wants to leave early (which obviously would've drastically increased my # of 99s.

Below is my latest 99 and while he's very good, he's no Clowney and it'd be dumb if he was rated higher than Clowney.

Hell, I have 6 95+ guys on my team right now and there are 18 guys on the 8 USER teams in 2023 that are 95+. Again, we're not allowed to sway guys so this could be far worse. If there are more than 18 95+ guys in the future of dynasty, starting with 14 certainly isn't too many. Of course the best solution is to start lower and have less progression, but with the current progression, we need to start with high rated players.

a 99 should be best in the world, all-timer type player, and should never happen in college.

i dont think there should be a cap on college players, but very rarely should any of them be in the 90's, and the elite should usually be in the mid-high 80's where most good-not-great pro's are. maybe a handful each year. those that would play and impact from day 1 in nfl, like clowney, julio/aj green a few years back, cam newton, luck/rg3, etc.

most players should be in 60's/70's, with the good in the high 70's/low 80's, and elite in mid/high 80's, with a rare low 90 player like peterson and manning.

as for those ratings, relative to each other, doesn't look bad. clowney is clearly the best player, followed by manziel and a handful of other good qb's and a few tackles.

I disagree completely with this. I think the 2 games should have 2 sets of ratings. The scales are (and should be) relative. A 99 in Madden should be the best to ever play in the NFL. Likewise a 99 in NCAA should be the best to ever play in the NCAA. There should be 90s in NCAA, which are the elite NCAA players (regardless of how they'd rate in Madden). A player's NCAA grade should have nothing to do with the NFL (since, of course, this isn't the NFL). A Pat White or Charlie Ward should be rated very highly in NCAA, even though they wouldn't be in Madden.

They're fine. I actually prefer an always connected experience.
I'd really prefer an offline way to play, but its not a bother.
I don't really like them, and am more reluctant to buy a game because of it.
I won't buy them. I want my games offline.